Editor’s Note: Few issues are more pressing in Providence than housing.
This week we’re publishing two essays from renters in Providence. They continue a conversation that began — for us, in the Eye’s Readers Voices section, at least — last year, with essays arguing for rent stabilization and asking, “What happened to affordable construction?”
We will continue to dedicate space to this complex and consequential issue. And we invite you to join us. Feel free to send your pitches, drafts, and letters, on housing in Providence to voices @pvdeye.org.
I am a proud Fox Point community member and have been a renter in my current home for 14 years. I’ve been here long enough to witness the beautiful transformation of nearby Ives and Wickenden Streets. These streets now offer the perfect places for a quick bite to eat and friendly conversation.
Over the years, I have added my own personal touch to the two-family multi-unit where I live by nurturing a garden that my landlord appreciates. For more than a decade, my rent has risen some, but not exorbitantly. That matters deeply to me as a retired older adult living on a fixed income.
I am a tenant who believes strongly in housing stability and fairness. I also know, based on firsthand experience living in Brookline, Massachusetts before the repeal of its rent control laws in 1994, that rent control is not something that helps most tenants or strengthens communities in the long run.
Brookline implemented rent control in the 1970s during the Vietnam War. Later it was proven through many case studies that rent control harmed those it intended to serve by stunting housing supply growth and slowing maintenance. The policy destroyed the tax base as it devalued property and cost millions to staff and enforce.
I cringe at the thought of Providence adopting a rent control system like the one being considered by the city council. I view it as a policy that could undermine the progress my neighborhood has made and make my own housing situation less stable. In fact, I worry it could force annual rent increases that I have not experienced under the flexibility of the current system.
If my landlord can no longer freely negotiate with me or my neighbors, I believe his hand will be forced to raise rents annually. Alternatively, he could sell to an owner occupant which would also inevitably raise my rent (since owner occupants are exempt from the proposed plan) or displace me from my home entirely. Encouraging homeownership is great. However, without increasing housing supply, that still leaves some of us with nowhere to go. I know an owner occupant would love my unit! I wouldn’t blame my landlord for either of these choices.
My landlord has always taken a pragmatic yet caring approach and keeps up with the property. This is my home, and we both treat it that way. Despite rising costs, the flexibility of the current system has allowed him to make decisions that work for all of his tenants, myself included. He has chosen not to raise my rent as he appreciates my stable tenancy and can currently handle costs. He has also invested greatly in improvements to the property that I appreciate. Mandatory rent control changes that relationship.
The current proposal limits rent increases to four percent per year, limits a landlord’s ability to manage a lease, and requires them to seek approval through a long process in front of a rent board in order to make improvements and raise rents beyond four percent – even between tenancies. Costs like utilities, taxes, insurance, and labor continue to rise, and do not seem fully accounted for in this proposal. I fear this pressure will cause landlords to skimp on improvements while exercising yearly maximum increases. Our once-mutually-beneficial and amicable arrangement will become rigid. I witnessed this in Massachusetts years ago. Brookline’s rent-control program had many of the same exemptions to owner-occupied houses and new construction that are being proposed in Providence. It did not matter. Negative consequences prevailed.
When increases are capped by law and tied to rigid timelines, landlords start thinking defensively. If they fear they will not be able to raise rent later to keep up with taxes, insurance, repairs, or interest rates, the rational response is to raise rents as much as possible now before the rules tighten. There is also the reality that, under constrained rental income, upkeep and improvements often get delayed or altogether neglected.
The policies outlined in the proposed ordinance like rent caps, vacancy control, rent board reviews, registration requirements, and additional legal requirements, do nothing to solve our housing issues. This has been tried before and even with exemptions, has produced more harm than good.
If the plan becomes law, I fear that fixed-income retirees like me and many others in Providence could be hit with surprise rent increases in the coming months as landlords hedge against what may be coming.
I fear other negative outcomes, too. They may stop offering informal freezes or modest increases. They may decide that keeping long-term, stable tenants like me is no longer feasible. Some could be forced to sell or convert to condominiums.
None of this is to deny the existence of the housing crisis. But rent control is not the solution.
Instead, we should invest in solutions that actually expand housing access and choice, such as increasing housing supply, supporting social housing, and providing targeted assistance to tenants who need it most. These approaches can improve affordability without overstepping into successful landlord-tenant relationships like mine.
Housing policy should take everyone’s perspective into account and not punish the many because of a few bad actors.
Policy should protect tenants from harm. It should not accidentally manufacture it.
Alisa Mazor is a retired assistant stock broker. In previous lives she worked in retail management and interior design. She was born and brought up in Providence and resides in Fox Point with her dog, Red.
Want to comment? Click!